If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Very scary to me that these people only believe you should have a choice about some things ... as long as the choices you make align with their beliefs in what is best for you, for the planet, and the taxpayer. Nobody mentions that there might be some unhealthy results of abortion ... so doesn't that mean that govt should limit that choice as well?

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Kevin, the problem would seem to be that the woman is making a decision for two humans, not just herself. Late-term abortions, when living babies are born and subsequently allowed to die or "assisted" in dying, surely brings the dilemma to front-and-center.

I can find no rational argument against contraception, or even sterilization. Both of those prevent a life from beginning; not stopping a life that has begun. The morning-after pill may be open ... as one may not be able to say at what point fertilization takes place.

When a choice has to be made to save one life or the other (baby or mother), then any decision means the death of one, so God will have to judge whether we make the right choice. Roman Catholics believe that the choice must always be in favor of the baby. I cannot agree with that. If it is a mere mortal making the choice, either choice is "fallible"; and if I don't believe in Papal Infallabiity, then I cannot ascribe that one choice is better than the other.

The areas of abortion "disputes" lie in the other scenarios possible. I don't think I'm wise enough to make all those judgments.

The proposal that abortion should become legal, safe and rare is not turning out quite that way. The Gosnell case questions of the safety, and the numbers surely don't demonstrate the rarity. It would appear the only thing that has been "solved" via Roe v. Wade is the legal part.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

The problem is that at what point do you stop? Late term abortions are a thorny issue. Some people, mainly Roman Caths. will take it to the extreme and say that a woman's eggs are sacrosanct. We can't use frozen embryos, ones that will NEVER be implanted into a woman yet those are okay to eventually be destroyed when they could be used to help the living? Is a woman's eggs that she discards via her cycle then a death also? Why? Just because they haven't been fertilized with sperm? Is it North Dakota that is saying you cannot abort after 16 weeks or is it 22 weeks? When will legislation be brought forth that after one week you cannot abort? When does it stop.

Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy

Kevin, the problem would seem to be that the woman is making a decision for two humans, not just herself. Late-term abortions, when living babies are born and subsequently allowed to die or "assisted" in dying, surely brings the dilemma to front-and-center.

I can find no rational argument against contraception, or even sterilization. Both of those prevent a life from beginning; not stopping a life that has begun. The morning-after pill may be open ... as one may not be able to say at what point fertilization takes place.

When a choice has to be made to save one life or the other (baby or mother), then any decision means the death of one, so God will have to judge whether we make the right choice. Roman Catholics believe that the choice must always be in favor of the baby. I cannot agree with that. If it is a mere mortal making the choice, either choice is "fallible"; and if I don't believe in Papal Infallabiity, then I cannot ascribe that one choice is better than the other.

The areas of abortion "disputes" lie in the other scenarios possible. I don't think I'm wise enough to make all those judgments.

The proposal that abortion should become legal, safe and rare is not turning out quite that way. The Gosnell case questions of the safety, and the numbers surely don't demonstrate the rarity. It would appear the only thing that has been "solved" via Roe v. Wade is the legal part.